Locals Blame Rebels, While Rebels Insist Other Alawites Did It

A massive death toll has been reported over the past two days in attacks on the Alawite village of Aqrab, with some opposition groups saying that as many as 300 may have been killed.

Tolls vary, but most seem in the realm of 150-200, with some higher. The question then is who is responsible for the attacks, and while locals initially pinned the attack on rebels from the nearby town of Houla, the rebels are denying responsibility.

In some narratives, the Syrian government inexplicably attacked the village themselves, bizarre since President Assad is Alawite and the Alawites overwhelmingly support the regime. Other reports claimed a Houla attack led to massive air strikes that killed everybody on both sides.

The most improbable of the claims, coming from foreign pro-rebel activists, is that some random pro-regime militia made up of “other Alawites” deliberately massacred a village full of Alawites for no apparent reason.

The what is called " rebel/s" are after Assad, Assad is Alawite.., guess who wants to kill the other.., Alawite are the supporter of Assad so as many other nationals in Syria.., guess again who have the support of the majority.., if Assad didn't had the majority support…, the the Syrian government would have fallen in hands of these terrorists long time ago.., don't get me wrong Jason.., this question is for the U.S and EU governments advisors.., not the other guy, after all, the guy is not that intelligent otherwise he wouldn't hire advisors paying them so much for what.., a orchestrated war?.., you see.., starting a war is easy..,you don't need these advisors.., that shows the functionality of a non functional democracy wasting people's money.

Ambiguity is a potent arm and the real backbone of many (perhaps most) info campaigns, so this is not pedantic nitpicking. A close reading of the article is in order.

In the phrase, “while locals initially pinned the attack on rebels from the nearby town of Houla, the rebels are denying responsibility”, the adverb (“initially”) suggests that the locals have now come to believe the rebels are justified in denying their responsibility. It is rather surprising and counter-intuitive (given the context and divides) that the locals, while practically still under fire and undoubtedly in a state of shock, should so rapidly reconsider their position! This U-turn therefore demands an explanation or at least some discussion, however brief. Why should known victims defend known foes? Do they see a false flag op perpetrated by their supposed defenders?

It can be part of phrases having the quality you're inferring, but I don't think the word acts that way on its own. The story's wide variations may well mean someone's disinfo op., and it could partly involve or affect witnesses or people close to the action… I'm kinda glad to see the idea brought up –it seems inevitable, in psychologically significant events, that there would be discussions not only 'false flags,' but 'false false flags' –even acknowledgements that such things might be done by a side one sticks with.

‘Hardwiring’ a message into propaganda is crude and generally appeals to people’s emotions (MSM is mainly this). But there’s also a ‘softwiring’ approach that appeals only apparently to people’s intellectual and analytic capacities while actually targeting emotions, this time by denying us a ‘handle’ on the news – disorientation is a great emotional lever – and hence disempowering us by using asides and tiny words like “initially” to minimize events and defuse responses. I can provide other examples of this seeding at work here. Ditz deflects us away from objectivity by suggesting that quite simply because rival claims have been made – both of which we should be informed of, of course! – they essentially carry the same weight.

"In my imagination, Ditz deflects us away from objectivity by suggesting that quite simply because rival claims have been made – both of which we should be informed of, of course! – they essentially carry the same weight."

There, fixed that for ya.

In point of fact, Ditz labeled the claims made by one side "inexplicable" and "improbable."

What is of interest for me is the effect, unimagined. Your observation is correct: in fact, we see a ‘wavering’ in Ditz, not an objective presentation of rival claims as such. It disempowers the reader. Rhetoric is perhaps the world’s oldest profession… together with the other two, of course. In any case, Walt’s FP article featured on today’s antiwar page expresses a similar concern to mine over “careless” use of language. Interestingly, Walt is not above carelessness himself (the clichés about bombing ones own people and dictatorship and so forth). Good try!